If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

This is completely retarded. They just legalized (situational) manslaughter.

People blocking the road can result in deaths. If that happens it is their fault, not the drivers. It's completely rational. If everyone on the road was travelling to an ass scratching convention it would be retarded - but they're not. Some are first responders, some are in need of medical care. Endangering the lives of travelers to safeguard rioters is retarded. Your demonstration has ceased to be a protest and has become a riot when you endanger lives with it.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Marou

People blocking the road can result in deaths. If that happens it is their fault, not the drivers. It's completely rational. If everyone on the road was travelling to an ass scratching convention it would be retarded - but they're not. Some are first responders, some are in need of medical care. Endangering the lives of travelers to safeguard rioters is retarded. Your demonstration has ceased to be a protest and has become a riot when you endanger lives with it.

So heres the deal, a 'real protest' goes out and gets permits to be allowed to 'march' (as they are essentially marching permits). If they do not aquire these permits the police have every right to legally disperse them. And if they do have the permits, they have every right to block traffic as granted by their permit. Granting people the 'legal recourse' of running down protestors in their car will open the door to people interpreting this poorly and running down legal protestors. What you said about riots does not apply to protestors as they are not protesting, they are rioting (as exemplified by destruction of property and chaos).

So, this is still fucking retarded. Even though the article does state:

“This bill does not allow for the driver of a vehicle to target protesters intentionally,” he added. “It does protect individuals who are rightfully trying to drive down the road.”

As I said people will think they've been given a 'free pass' to run these people down just because they heard this law was passed. It' just a terrible idea which could have been settled through court precedents rather than legislation. If a protestor jumps out in front a moving vehicle you cannot have possibly 'intentionally' hit them and therefore have no fault. If a protestor is protesting, legally, or illegally, in the middle of a street this law does not protect you from running them down intentionally from what I read on that page, but (some) people will think it does.

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

So heres the deal, a 'real protest' goes out and gets permits to be allowed to 'march' (as they are essentially marching permits). If they do not aquire these permits the police have every right to legally disperse them. And if they do have the permits, they have every right to block traffic as granted by their permit. Granting people the 'legal recourse' of running down protestors in their car will open the door to people interpreting this poorly and running down legal protestors. What you said about riots does not apply to protestors as they are not protesting, they are rioting (as exemplified by destruction of property and chaos).

So, this is still fucking retarded. Even though the article does state:

As I said people will think they've been given a 'free pass' to run these people down just because they heard this law was passed. It' just a terrible idea which could have been settled through court precedents rather than legislation. If a protestor jumps out in front a moving vehicle you cannot have possibly 'intentionally' hit them and therefore have no fault. If a protestor is protesting, legally, or illegally, in the middle of a street this law does not protect you from running them down intentionally from what I read on that page, but (some) people will think it does.

So, essentially your argument is - because people are retarded and can't read; this law is retarded. I think that's a retarded argument, how about that?

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

This is completely retarded. They just legalized (situational) manslaughter.

This bill in no shape, way or form does this.

"§ 1-539.13 Immunity from civil liability for certain automobile drivers.
16 (a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another
17 person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public
18 street or highway is immune from civil liability for the injury.
19 (b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury
20 were willful or wanton.
21 (c) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply if the injured person participating in a
22 protest or demonstration was doing so with a valid permit allowing persons to protest or
23 demonstrate on the public street or highway where the injury occurred."

It does not protect you from criminal prosecution. You are not legally allowed to kill someone under this bill. It ONLY protects you from civil liability (e.g. the medical bills of the protester). Furthermore, to be under the protections of this bill you must be exercising due care. "Due Care" is not just a random set of words used in the bill but an actual legally defined term meaning: Due care refers to the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid harm to another, taking the circumstances into account. It refers to the level of judgment, care, prudence, determination, and activity that a person would reasonably be expected to do under particular circumstances.

So who then does a bill like this really protect? A person that gets caught in the middle of some bullshit and has to escape. If, then, they injure someone in the process they don't have to pay their medical bills.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Zavon

This bill in no shape, way or form does this.

"§ 1-539.13 Immunity from civil liability for certain automobile drivers.
16 (a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another
17 person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public
18 street or highway is immune from civil liability for the injury.
19 (b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury
20 were willful or wanton.
21 (c) Subsection (a) of this section shall not apply if the injured person participating in a
22 protest or demonstration was doing so with a valid permit allowing persons to protest or
23 demonstrate on the public street or highway where the injury occurred."

It does not protect you from criminal prosecution. You are not legally allowed to kill someone under this bill. It ONLY protects you from civil liability (e.g. the medical bills of the protester). Furthermore, to be under the protections of this bill you must be exercising due care. "Due Care" is not just a random set of words used in the bill but an actual legally defined term meaning: Due care refers to the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid harm to another, taking the circumstances into account. It refers to the level of judgment, care, prudence, determination, and activity that a person would reasonably be expected to do under particular circumstances.

So who then does a bill like this really protect? A person that gets caught in the middle of some bullshit and has to escape. If, then, they injure someone in the process they don't have to pay their medical bills.

And as I said, this would have better been settled by court precedent than legislation that people will interpret wrongly, especially with clickbait news articles such as the one VK dropped with the links.

It's illegal to 'run down' a protester, always has been as it's illegal to run anyone down because that is manslaughter/murder.

An accidental manslaughter is determined by a court to show that negligence on the part of the driver was not the cause of the death, this is how it works.

A law that says you have no civil liability for killing someone who is protesting in the street or engaged in protest/riot behavior near a street while operating a car is retarded as it is already covered by the fact that it is illegal to protest in a street without a permit and standing in traffic is illegal.

In the case of the 'rioting' that people need to escape quickly this would still be covered in a self-defense, emergency circumstances.

All this law does in my mind is to confuse the public on what actually is legal/illegal, and allow certain 'anti-protestor' individuals to make an easier justification of just not hitting those breaks when they are met with a demonstration in the streets.

I guess I see it as a law that opens up unnecessary risks for both protestors and drivers while creating legal precedent for victim families to be unable to sue against people who willingly put themselves into a situation where injury is 10x more likely to the victim than a person in a steel cage (vehicle). Two wrongs don't make a right and all that jazz.

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

And as I said, this would have better been settled by court precedent than legislation that people will interpret wrongly, especially with clickbait news articles such as the one VK dropped with the links.

It's illegal to 'run down' a protester, always has been as it's illegal to run anyone down because that is manslaughter/murder.

An accidental manslaughter is determined by a court to show that negligence on the part of the driver was not the cause of the death, this is how it works.

A law that says you have no civil liability for killing someone who is protesting in the street or engaged in protest/riot behavior near a street while operating a car is retarded as it is already covered by the fact that it is illegal to protest in a street without a permit and standing in traffic is illegal.

In the case of the 'rioting' that people need to escape quickly this would still be covered in a self-defense, emergency circumstances.

All this law does in my mind is to confuse the public on what actually is legal/illegal, and allow certain 'anti-protestor' individuals to make an easier justification of just not hitting those breaks when they are met with a demonstration in the streets.

I guess I see it as a law that opens up unnecessary risks for both protestors and drivers while creating legal precedent for victim families to be unable to sue against people who willingly put themselves into a situation where injury is 10x more likely to the victim than a person in a steel cage (vehicle). Two wrongs don't make a right and all that jazz.

Most of these "organic protests" are fomented by paid agitators. They have deep pockets and can ruin the lives of people with civil suits. Paid protestors deserve to be ran over, but we can't very well legalize that. Preventing someone who accidentally runs over a protestor from being financially ruined is sensible.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

And as I said, this would have better been settled by court precedent than legislation that people will interpret wrongly, especially with clickbait news articles such as the one VK dropped with the links.

It's illegal to 'run down' a protester, always has been as it's illegal to run anyone down because that is manslaughter/murder.

An accidental manslaughter is determined by a court to show that negligence on the part of the driver was not the cause of the death, this is how it works.

A law that says you have no civil liability for killing someone who is protesting in the street or engaged in protest/riot behavior near a street while operating a car is retarded as it is already covered by the fact that it is illegal to protest in a street without a permit and standing in traffic is illegal.

In the case of the 'rioting' that people need to escape quickly this would still be covered in a self-defense, emergency circumstances.

All this law does in my mind is to confuse the public on what actually is legal/illegal, and allow certain 'anti-protestor' individuals to make an easier justification of just not hitting those breaks when they are met with a demonstration in the streets.

I guess I see it as a law that opens up unnecessary risks for both protestors and drivers while creating legal precedent for victim families to be unable to sue against people who willingly put themselves into a situation where injury is 10x more likely to the victim than a person in a steel cage (vehicle). Two wrongs don't make a right and all that jazz.

No, involuntary manslaughter is not what this bill is protecting you against. Involuntary Manslaughter is a crime. This bill is a civil liability protection. If you commit Involuntary Manslaughter (which this is not even the charge, in fact this is Vehicular Manslaughter), then you have recklessly or wantonly taken the life of someone. That means you are not protected from civil liability under this bill.

You can still be innocent of a crime, but forced to pay for the restitution of injuries of someone else. Civil liability does not work on the same threshold as criminal liability.

To reiterate, you called it "Legal manslaughter" which I have shown it is not. It has no effect on criminal prosecution. At all. Now that we have established that you were incorrect in your understanding, you are now saying: It confuses the public unnecessarily. This is an entirely different argument.

However, if people do something stupid as a result of this law that does not make such a law irrelevant. It is intended to protect reasonable and/or innocent citizens from having an unfair settlement levied against them. A law that protects good people is never a bad thing. If we only created laws that accounted for the lowest common denominator of human beings (e.g. billy bob getting drunk and running down protestors cuz they got legal manslaughters now), then our society would be practical anarchy.

Furthermore, as to your continuous claims about "Precedent", that is an irrelevant argument. Precedent is left to the discretion of a judge; a law is not. This absolutely ensures protection.

Last edited by Zavon; 05-05-2017 at 02:06 PM.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Zavon

No, involuntary manslaughter is not what this bill is protecting you against. Involuntary Manslaughter is a crime. This bill is a civil liability protection. If you commit Involuntary Manslaughter (which this is not even the charge, in fact this is Vehicular Manslaughter), then you have recklessly or wantonly taken the life of someone. That means you are not protected from civil liability under this bill.

You can still be innocent of a crime, but forced to pay for the restitution of injuries of someone else. Civil liability does not work on the same threshold as criminal liability.

To reiterate, you called it "Legal manslaughter" which I have shown it is not. It has no effect on criminal prosecution. At all. Now that we have established that you were incorrect in your understanding, you are now saying: It confuses the public unnecessarily. This is an entirely different argument.

However, if people do something stupid as a result of this law that does not make such a law irrelevant. It is intended to protect reasonable and/or innocent citizens from having an unfair settlement levied against them. A law that protects good people is never a bad thing. If we only created laws that accounted for the lowest common denominator of human beings (e.g. billy bob getting drunk and running down protestors cuz they got legal manslaughters now), then our society would be practical anarchy.

Furthermore, as to your continuous claims about "Precedent", that is an irrelevant argument. Precedent is left to the discretion of a judge; a law is not. This absolutely ensures protection.

Yes I started typing my first post before I fully read the article, based on the clickbait title. I agree and understand what you're getting at, especially the 'paid protestors' that people seem to think are 'so common'. I don't want to get into that, as it's largely conspiracy and you assume the motives of the people getting paid (some might see it as getting their expenses paid to participate). Anyways, my biggest gripe is that it causes:

Unnecessary confusion as to what the actual law is.
And the protections it provides (it would seem to me) would be provided by any sitting judge who was worth his weight in ethics and liability laws.
---^ Sure if this state has some serious issues with libtard judges awarding damages on ridiculous suits, like burglars suing people who injured them in home defense when there are laws that already protect the homeowner from criminal liability, then maybe this law is 'necessary' to curb these judges. But at the same time, some libtard appellate judge could just as easily dismantle this legislation with the right case and 'perpetrator'.

Anyways, I get it, theres both sides to this, but it just seems like bad/unnecessary legislation. And it's hard to say someone can be criminally liable but no civilly liable at the same time.

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

Yes I started typing my first post before I fully read the article, based on the clickbait title. I agree and understand what you're getting at, especially the 'paid protestors' that people seem to think are 'so common'. I don't want to get into that, as it's largely conspiracy and you assume the motives of the people getting paid (some might see it as getting their expenses paid to participate). Anyways, my biggest gripe is that it causes:

Unnecessary confusion as to what the actual law is.
And the protections it provides (it would seem to me) would be provided by any sitting judge who was worth his weight in ethics and liability laws.
---^ Sure if this state has some serious issues with libtard judges awarding damages on ridiculous suits, like burglars suing people who injured them in home defense when there are laws that already protect the homeowner from criminal liability, then maybe this law is 'necessary' to curb these judges. But at the same time, some libtard appellate judge could just as easily dismantle this legislation with the right case and 'perpetrator'.

Anyways, I get it, theres both sides to this, but it just seems like bad/unnecessary legislation. And it's hard to say someone can be criminally liable but no civilly liable at the same time.

We definitely have an issue with misleading media and fake news, no argument from me there at all. I couldn't even begin to know how to fix that problem...

Also, props to Vk for actually posting the bill instead of just the article.

Last edited by Zavon; 05-05-2017 at 03:24 PM.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." ~ Voltaire

2 Kings 2:23-24: "....Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Zavon

Also, props to Vk for actually posting the bill instead of just the article.

Yeah. I think it's surprisingly well written, too. I get tired of looking up leglisation to get to the bottom of conflicting articles/interpretations, and finding thirty pages of shit about EAGLES and FREEEDOM and AMURICA and TO BETTER SERVE THA PEOPLE and two paragraphs of actual content.

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

And the protections it provides (it would seem to me) would be provided by any sitting judge who was worth his weight in ethics and liability laws.

What is this based on? I've stayed far away from the legal system so I have no clue myself, but from what I've read about justifiable homicide relating to firearms topics these courts are crapshoots and money sinks. I think the protections here are important, not because they promise a win but because they promise IMMUNITY. That seems to imply that people can't just throw money and paperwork at it to use it as a weapon against you.

Last edited by VKhaun; 05-05-2017 at 04:41 PM.

Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by VKhaun

Yeah. I think it's surprisingly well written, too. I get tired of looking up leglisation to get to the bottom of conflicting articles/interpretations, and finding thirty pages of shit about EAGLES and FREEEDOM and AMURICA and TO BETTER SERVE THA PEOPLE and two paragraphs of actual content.

Off topic for the thread, but I was impressed buy the Obamacare repeal bill.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Ozoron

What parts were you impressed with? I haven't researched it enough yet, did they allow insurance to compete across state lines yet?

I was impressed at how focused it was, rather than being specifically impressed with a certain section. Usually these big bills are kitchen sinks and have all softs of graft and bullshit in them. Not so this one.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."